Honestly most firms don't care about the specific number, just the tier with the exception of top 14. Thus firms see T14, tier 1, 2, 3, 4. Granted there are exceptions but most firms will not care if your ranked 77 or 87, its when you drop out of the top 100 when it can hurt you. I do however find it ironic that most law schools sign a paper saying they do not like the rankings, yet many send out explanations to alumni when they drop. Also someone said their dean sent out a letter saying they had moved up to 80 I believe from T3. Ironic the Depaul dean signed a letter against rankings, yet sends out a letter bragging about the jump. Be proud of the jump, but dont say you disagree with them, thats sending out conflicting messages.

Honestly most firms don't care about the specific number, just the tier with the exception of top 14. Thus firms see T14, tier 1, 2, 3, 4. Granted there are exceptions but most firms will not care if your ranked 77 or 87, its when you drop out of the top 100 when it can hurt you. I do however find it ironic that most law schools sign a paper saying they do not like the rankings, yet many send out explanations to alumni when they drop. Also someone said their dean sent out a letter saying they had moved up to 80 I believe from T3. Ironic the Depaul dean signed a letter against rankings, yet sends out a letter bragging about the jump. Be proud of the jump, but dont say you disagree with them, thats sending out conflicting messages.

click on the link: this letter has been endorsed by the following deans.

It's perfectly possible not to like the artificial pressures and constructions the ranking system places, while at the same time maintaining a realistic appraisal of their importance in the admissions process. I don't see it as at all contradictory.

click on the link: this letter has been endorsed by the following deans.

this is a real nit-picky thing, but do you really think that all tier 1 schools outside of the t14 are seen as exactly the same? while drawing strict lines might be stupid, i think there are big differences between the t14, t20, t30, the rest of tier 1, etc. in fact, i think there's a big difference between schools that are at the top of tier 2 (which can even jump in to tier 1), those in the middle of tier 2, and those that barely make it.

ratings suck. there's no doubt about it. however, employers watch these things steadily (like law school admissions, they too are concerned with prestige), and know what school is where.

click on the link: this letter has been endorsed by the following deans.

this is a real nit-picky thing, but do you really think that all tier 1 schools outside of the t14 are seen as exactly the same? while drawing strict lines might be stupid, i think there are big differences between the t14, t20, t30, the rest of tier 1, etc. in fact, i think there's a big difference between schools that are at the top of tier 2 (which can even jump in to tier 1), those in the middle of tier 2, and those that barely make it.

ratings suck. there's no doubt about it. however, employers watch these things steadily (like law school admissions, they too are concerned with prestige), and know what school is where.

Well it depends on the firm. For some biglaw companies, there are four divisions: t3 (YHS), t6 (CCN), t14, and then the rest. Others make the split alluded to here (t14, tier 1, tier 2, the rest). It really depends on what sector the firm is used to dealing with. A firm that usually takes in YHS will more carefully parse amongst those three and less so with other categories. On the other hand, firms that generally draw from T2 schools will make the distinctions you name among upper, middle, and lower T2.

i think you're right on, for the most part. there are firms focused on t3, t6, t10, and also t14. this is also the case for firms that regularly draw from tier 2, who certainly divide that tier in to different groups.

however, i don't believe it's true that, within tier 1, schools ranked 15-50 are all treated the same. for example, there's a big difference in firms recruiting from something like texas (15) and american (high 40s). again, as much as ratings sucks, i think tier 1 is a lot like tier 2, in that it's more broken down- firms look first at t14 (and further break this down, as discussed), then at t20/25, then somewhere around t35, and then the rest of tier 1 (the t35 thing is a rough estimate, but it tends to represent the schools within tier 1 that stay within tier 1, while the rest of tier 1 can be pretty mobile, often slipping out of the tier altogether).

of course, as you've mentioned, it depends on the firm. some won't touch students outside of YHS. others won't go outside the t14. however, i think many firms still draw a big difference between, say, texas or UCLA and wisconsin, and also between wisconsin and somewhere like alabama.

i think you're right on, for the most part. there are firms focused on t3, t6, t10, and also t14. this is also the case for firms that regularly draw from tier 2, who certainly divide that tier in to different groups.

however, i don't believe it's true that, within tier 1, schools ranked 15-50 are all treated the same. for example, there's a big difference in firms recruiting from something like texas (15) and american (high 40s). again, as much as ratings sucks, i think tier 1 is a lot like tier 2, in that it's more broken down- firms look first at t14 (and further break this down, as discussed), then at t20/25, then somewhere around t35, and then the rest of tier 1 (the t35 thing is a rough estimate, but it tends to represent the schools within tier 1 that stay within tier 1, while the rest of tier 1 can be pretty mobile, often slipping out of the tier altogether).

of course, as you've mentioned, it depends on the firm. some won't touch students outside of YHS. others won't go outside the t14. however, i think many firms still draw a big difference between, say, texas or UCLA and wisconsin, and also between wisconsin and somewhere like alabama.

Yeah, I think this is a pretty accurate breakdown of Tier 1. It's probably more helpful to think of progressive "clusters" rather than a strict hierarchy. In general, I think a useful guide would be: